So you're an atheist. Ok, what next?

[plumjam]

Starting to wriggle? I thought it was all about what you believe?

See? You haven't been understanding a word I've said. I therefore feel under no obligation to reply further.
Go back and reread if you feel like it.

 

[John_Geeshu]

Yes, I think there are plenty of reasons why it's wrong. The existence of physical laws. The incredible fine-tuning of those physical laws, without which our existence as embodied conscious beings would not be possible. The existence of consciousness. The incredible unlikelihood of abiogenesis. The existence, and irreducibility to naturalism, of morality. The existence of aesthetic appreciation. The lives and teachings of the great spiritual figures. Religious experience. The informational nature of the universe. Mathematics. etc...

And what purpose or purposes do you infer from these things for life, the universe and everything?

 

[KingMerv00]

Blatant Appeal to Authority.

Get used to it when talking to Plumjam.

Oh and welcome.

 

[bokonon]

An act remains as good or as bad as it actually is regardless of whether it's an atheist or a theist performing it.

True, but you're being disingenuous. You've already stated that when an atheist performs a good act, it's because he's acting like a theist, and when a theist performs a bad act, it's because he's failing to "live the theism." Which is essentially a "four legs good, two legs bad" argument in which atheism is inherently evil, but the vileness can be overcome by individual effort.

My argument has never been that someone having atheist beliefs will necessarily make them less moral.

My argument regarding atheism vis-a-vis morality is that when the exclusive materialist world view behind most atheism expresses itself socially in the form of new moral systems the result is disastrous, because it represents a drift away from the objective moral truth.

There is no objective moral truth. Your insistence that an individual who examines his conscience is somehow discerning "objective moral truth" is simply another fallacy in a post which is packed with fallacies.

Christians have started holy wars in which innocent men, women, and children were killed, they have organized inquisitions to torture heretics, they have killed "witches," they have justified slavery. None of these acts were inconsistent with conscience at the time, though all would be considered "bad" today.

Why is atheism more immoral on a social than an individual level?
Well, this is because atheists almost always (except when powerful social pressures are brought to bear upon them, such as under Stalin, Pol Pot etc..) may have atheistic beliefs, but they live (in the moral dimension) as theists.

I'd say it was just the opposite. Christian theists are able to ignore the biblical endorsement of slavery today because they live (in the moral dimension) as atheists. Just like atheists, they are capable of independent ethical thought, and generally base their actions on that independent ethical thought rather than the dogmatic assertions in the Bible.

Most Christians today don't believe that adulterers should be stoned. That is not a belief that is shared by the Taliban. The Christian ignores scripture, while the Taliban does not. Which is more in line with "objective" morality?

 

[plumjam]

And what purpose or purposes do you infer from these things for life, the universe and everything?

That the Universe was created by an exterior intelligence which exists independently of space and time, but in a sense uses the universe to experience it/himself in an almost infinite variety of forms.

This self-experiencing on many levels can be described as the journey of consciousness; from lesser to greater consciousness. This takes place in an intelligently guided and driven evolution in which individual souls inhabit a myriad of forms up to the form of the human being, in which 100% self-consciousness is finally achieved.

Thence onwards the soul of the human being reincarnates on the human level. After many reincarnations the human tires of worldly life and thus begins the journey inward, referred to as involution. This is the start of the spiritual path, during which consciousness becomes less ego-based, identifies less with the individual, becomes more compassionate and loving, and finally culminates in God-realisation.. an absorption back into the source. The difference from start to finish is that at the start the 'soul' was 'part' of God but in a non-conscious way, at the end the soul is consciously part of God, and has finally become cognizant of its own true nature and identity with God.
So something real and infinitely valuable has been gained.

Thus the universe does have a purpose and meaning.

Blimey, time for a beer.

 

[X]

A quick question for Plumjam:

If there were an objective morality, then it seems reasonable to expect people everywhere to hold extremely similar set of morals.

Yet this does not happen.

Why?

And please don't argue "they just haven't looked for the right morals", unless you are going to provide a clear, unambiguous explanation of what the "right" morals are (hint: just because you disagree with them, doesn't make them "right", indeed, the people whose morals you disagree with likely have the same opinion of you).


ETA:

No, no, no, the fact that they were dictators is totally irrelevant. And yes, it's perfectly fair to compare Christian democracies with secular dictatorships rather than comparing, you know, Christian democracies with secular (drumroll) democracies such as Iceland. It's like me going, "of course Indians are better than whites, look at how nice Gandhi and Good Indians A, B, C, and D were compared to how evil Timothy McVeigh, Adolf Hitler and Jack the Ripper were! As you can see from my examples, evil is an exception with Indians, but with them whites, it's the norm!".

Here's to wondering why on Earth this thread is still alive when plumjam has had his warped world view has been shot down a thousand times over and still clings to his bigotry with a persistence that'd make a KKK member seethe with envy. Don't feed the bigot, already.

He picks on atheists for the same reason homophobes pick on gays and racists pick on people of other ethnicities: he's ignorant and stuck in a fantasy world.

Lol

did you hide your pills under the mattress today?

I noticed you ignored part of Safe-Keeper's post, so I included it and italicized said part for you to read.

 

[bokonon]

We are thus free to make up whatever kind of moral system we like.

Yes.

One is literally as good as another.

No, because we'll "like" some systems better than others.

We are free to make whatever meal we like with the ingredients in our pantry.

That doesn't mean they'll all be equally good, or that reasonable people will all agree on which is "best." That's the nature of subjective judgments, whether they're made for meals or morality.

 

[H'ethetheth]

the consequence of what you wrote is that if you knew you could get away with a crime that would benefit you, there's no real reason why you shouldn't do it.

Darat said it right, and I'll try to explain. What I'm trying to say is, that part of the community your ancestors lived in didn't care much about acting socially, and because they didn't get as many children as those who did, you now have a conscience that haunts you whenever you act anti-socially.
So, no: That is not the consequence of what I wrote.

 

[Hokulele]

Subjective morality, a physical basis for conscience and empathy, no god required.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran06/ramachandran06_index.html

 

[plumjam]

True, but you're being disingenuous. You've already stated that when an atheist performs a good act, it's because he's acting like a theist, and when a theist performs a bad act, it's because he's failing to "live the theism." Which is essentially a "four legs good, two legs bad" argument in which atheism is inherently evil, but the vileness can be overcome by individual effort.


There is no objective moral truth. Your insistence that an individual who examines his conscience is somehow discerning "objective moral truth" is simply another fallacy in a post which is packed with fallacies.

Christians have started holy wars in which innocent men, women, and children were killed, they have organized inquisitions to torture heretics, they have killed "witches," they have justified slavery. None of these acts were inconsistent with conscience at the time, though all would be considered "bad" today.


I'd say it was just the opposite. Christian theists are able to ignore the biblical endorsement of slavery today because they live (in the moral dimension) as atheists. Just like atheists, they are capable of independent ethical thought, and generally base their actions on that independent ethical thought rather than the dogmatic assertions in the Bible.

Most Christians today don't believe that adulterers should be stoned. That is not a belief that is shared by the Taliban. The Christian ignores scripture, while the Taliban does not. Which is more in line with "objective" morality?

Fine. Devise a moral system based on materialist atheism. Start your own nation, and wait for the results.

 

[John_Geeshu]

That the Universe was created by an exterior intelligence which exists independently of space and time, but in a sense uses the universe to experience it/himself in an almost infinite variety of forms.

This self-experiencing on many levels can be described as the journey of consciousness; from lesser to greater consciousness. This takes place in an intelligently guided and driven evolution in which individual souls inhabit a myriad of forms up to the form of the human being, in which 100% self-consciousness is finally achieved.

Thence onwards the soul of the human being reincarnates on the human level. After many reincarnations the human tires of worldly life and thus begins the journey inward, referred to as involution. This is the start of the spiritual path, during which consciousness becomes less ego-based, identifies less with the individual, becomes more compassionate and loving, and finally culminates in God-realization.. an absorption back into the source. The difference from start to finish is that at the start the 'soul' was 'part' of God but in a non-conscious way, at the end the soul is consciously part of God, and has finally become cognizant of its own true nature and identity with God.
So something real and infinitely valuable has been gained.

Thus the universe does have a purpose and meaning.

Blimey, time for a beer.

That's actually quite interesting. It is highly-speculative though, don't you think? What do you make of the arguments from scientists like Victor Stenger, Richard Dawkins and David Attenborough that there not only exists no evidence for intelligence in the driving or guidance of any kind of evolution, but that what is observed by scientific method suggests strongly that there is no intelligence behind life?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Given that the main factor in morality is conscience it isn't going to make a great deal of difference if you're an atheist or a theist in that context.

However, for some people, the belief that there is an omniscient being, who is aware of all your actions, watching, may well prove a disincentive to performing a crime they know no human will know of.

And yet religion, whether the religion of Gods, the religion of hate, or the religion of Communism, has also made it possible to murder great masses of people while believing that such genocide is a just act of "God's will".

 

[bokonon]

That the Universe was created by an exterior intelligence which exists independently of space and time, but in a sense uses the universe to experience it/himself in an almost infinite variety of forms.

This self-experiencing on many levels can be described as the journey of consciousness; from lesser to greater consciousness. This takes place in an intelligently guided and driven evolution in which individual souls inhabit a myriad of forms up to the form of the human being, in which 100% self-consciousness is finally achieved.

Thence onwards the soul of the human being reincarnates on the human level. After many reincarnations the human tires of worldly life and thus begins the journey inward, referred to as involution. This is the start of the spiritual path, during which consciousness becomes less ego-based, identifies less with the individual, becomes more compassionate and loving, and finally culminates in God-realisation.. an absorption back into the source. The difference from start to finish is that at the start the 'soul' was 'part' of God but in a non-conscious way, at the end the soul is consciously part of God, and has finally become cognizant of its own true nature and identity with God.
So something real and infinitely valuable has been gained.

Thus the universe does have a purpose and meaning.

Blimey, time for a beer.

Let's pop the top on a Buddha beer (or is that a Hindu Heineken?).

Presumably, the "exterior intelligence" was aware of himself before he blew himself into so many myriad unaware pieces.

This journey back to awareness can't really be too meaningful if it winds up with the same bored eternal EI that twisted himself into this puzzle in the first place.

I don't have a problem with these games, but I see them for what they are. They don't manage to graft real meaning on a meaningless universe.

I can still find meaning in my own life, by choosing what is important to me. Yes, it's subjective meaning, but so what? Yes, it isn't "eternal," but my actions will still have consequences beyond myself, and I am aware of that, though I may not always know with accuracy just what those consequences will be. Subjective and limited is the hand I've been dealt, and I choose to play it.

 

[SonOfLaertes]

Well, I'm not particularly a Christian, but I'd prefer that to the secular society. My whole upbringing through education/the media/ popular culture in this secular society has had behind it the rarely explicitly stated assumption that life and the universe is basically meaningless.
It took me years to see that that was what was actually happening, and to move beyond that.
In a Christian society I wouldn't have wasted so many years in all that nonsense.

The idea that secularism is somehow "neutral" is just false. Any position is a position, with attendant consequences.

Except that in a secular society, the chances that you will be able to live your life as you see fit are so much greater than in any society dominated by any theistic principle. History clearly shows us this. Am I sure you are aware of this. Therefore I believe that your answer is self-serving. You ignore the possibility that a theistic government will not allow you to express or live your personal beliefs in the way you feel is right.

A secular government - and here I refer to the European or American style -
rarely tries to force it's conception of morality on it's population. Bush & Co. being a recent exeception.

 

[John_Geeshu]

Given that the main factor in morality is conscience ...

I disagree. The most important, though not exclusively so, part to good moral thinking is reason, not conscience.

 

[plumjam]

That's actually quite interesting.

Wow. Thanks. Someone finally saying something positive

It is highly-speculative though, don't you think?

From the normal point of view, yes. However I believe in the validity (in some cases) of revelation, as a legitimate source of knowledge. By that, as a simple example, if half a dozen people independently approach me from over the horizon, and I ask them what there is over there, and they all answer a small village with a pond, and redbrick houses... well, who am I to disagree?
Many aspects of the explanation I gave have been confirmed by religious figures. Most notably by Meher Baba, whose explanation mine was based on.

What do you make of the arguments from scientists like Victor Stenger, Richard Dawkins and David Attenborough that there not only exists no evidence for intelligence in the driving or guidance of any kind of evolution, but that what is observed by scientific method suggests strongly that there is no intelligence behind life?

I'd say 150 years ago people who suggested the existence of electromagnetic waves were ridiculed. Our current state of knowledge is no doubt minuscule to what it will be in the future. The fact that we currently don't know the nature of any 'mechanism' for the intelligent guidance of physical evolution does not mean we should conclude that such a thing cannot exist. We have no idea what gravity or magnetism are, or how they manage to work at a distance. We have no idea what is the 'mechanism' which makes consciousness possible. We cannot be sure even that 'mechanisms' are what are needed for consciousness or intelligently guided evolution. Perhaps intelligence sometimes works through mechanisms, sometimes not.

 

[bokonon]

Fine. Devise a moral system based on materialist atheism. Start your own nation, and wait for the results.

This is a non-sequitur. You might as well say "devise a moral system based on apple pie." Just because a person is an atheist, or a materialist, doesn't mean that their morality derives from atheism, or materialism, any more than the fact that they're a Galilean or a carpenter defines their moral system.

"Theism" doesn't dictate a moral system either. Old-Testament monotheism came up with certain rules, New-Testament monotheism came up with different rules, Greek, Mayan, Egyptian, Aztec, and Hindu polytheism all came up with different rules.

Ethical choices are made according to subjective criteria. The "objectivity" you perceive is all in your head.

 

[plumjam]

I disagree. The most important, though not exclusively so, part to good moral thinking is reason, not conscience.

So that will mean that people who are good at reasoning should be more moral than those who aren't so clever, shouldn't it?

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Plum, you’re only postponing the inevitable sour taste of being wrong.

You think the chair is blue, upholstered in velvet, and made of mahogany.. you don't know it. You also think other people should think the chair is roughly like that too.

You think this because you trust your visual perception, and have faith that it refers to an 'objective' reality.

You already made a similar kind of post before (#590) to which I responded (post #628). Here it is again:

…it stays subjective unless you can show this “objective moral truth” that you so eagerly refer to? It’s easy with a chair (there’s a denotation involved), but when talking about morality you’re just not convincing at all; you simply talk about connotations when referring to morality as a product of conscience, yet you keep insisting they are objective. They are not.

In short: you are wrong in a similar way as a person is wrong when he claims to have arrived at a though without thinking.




…”and the rock cried out, no hiding place”

You also think that modern Sweden is better than Nazism, morally speaking. If someone were to come along and tell you they feel Nazism more moral would you describe this person as more, less, or equally as moral as you?

It’s still subjective plumjam! I would think his position is less moral than mine (provided he knows approximately the same things about Sweden and Nazi Germany as I do). Whatever I think about that person or how I compare my morality to his; it’s still a subjective assessment, my assessment. You might agree with my assessment, that would be your subjective assessment.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So where does it come from?

Morality is a construct of our brains, it evolved out of our species need to survive. It is also highly subjective and always changing. You may as well be asking where people's opinion of their "favorite foods" come from.